[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704200916250.20232@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> >
> > The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using
> > cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free.
> > But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used.
> > This patch makes new setting for its request.
> >
> > This is not tested yet. But it would work.
>
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> >
> > + if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2)
> > + panic("out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
> > +
>
> Wouldn't it be safer to put the panic before the read_lock()?
I agree. Otherwise the patch seem to be okay.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists